harmony wrote:wenglund wrote:A couple of questions if I may:
Do you consider the atnosphere of this board to be conducive to academically addressing Will's academic arguments?
Yes. Witness the ongoing (almost 80 pages) of discussion about the Jockers' study.
Do you understand the important distinction between "rare exceptions" and "the rule?" (See below)
Or, might there be better venues where your concerns may not come into play?
No. No other board offers a level playing field for all participants. And this forum is the correct forum for the concept.
MsJack's concern had nothing to do with "level playng fields." Rather, it had to do with her not feeling "comfortable" in cases where insults are given in response to academic inquiry. Since this board is notorious for its insult-fests (the main menu of the day), one would reasonably consider this board to be one of the least likely places to alley MsJack's concerns. That's why I asked the question. (See below)
Were the women you mentioned above only academically challenging Will's ideas? Or, was there more or less to it?
The context is available on the provided links.Are you and the women you mentioned not capable of academically challenging the alleged attacks on your age, bodies, appearance, and sexuality?
Age, bodies, appearance, and sexuality are not academic issues subject to challenge. Therefore attacks on same are not academic challanges.
Be that as it may, you didn't answer the question. It wasn't about whether such attacks are academic or not, but whether MsJack and the other ladies here are capable of dealing with the non-academic attacks academically.
In other words, can you not just ignore or simply point out the alleged ad hominems like we apologists must do multiple times on a daily basis here?
1. I don't consider you an apologist, Wade, so your "we" is strange. Dan is an apologist; LoaP is an apologist. Mike Ash, Brant Gardner, Ben McGuire, etc...all apologists. You are not (that's not an insult).
I don't wish to quibble over semantics because doing so tends to be beside the point (as is the case here). Consider me however you wish. The point is, I, and other LDS men, are most frequently subjected to personal insults and degradation here. Some of us have found various ways to manage here in spite of the disproportion of insults hurdled our way. If we can manage, why can't the ladies--particularly on a much smaller scale.
2. Personal insults have no place in academic discussions. Thus any discussion where personal insults are present is not an academic discussion. Ignoring or deflecting personal insults will not elevate a discussion to higher plane.
Again, be that as it may, you didn't answer the question. It wasn't about whether insults are appropriate or not, but rather whether MsJack and the other ladies of MD are capable, like the LDS men that participate here and elsewhere, of find a way to deal with the plethora of insults that occur here nevertheless?
In short, should you, as a female academic, be treated differently (better?) on this board than the men--like Will for example.
All people should be treated with respect. Jack does that. All priesthood holders are required to listen to the prophet regarding treatement of women. Some here obviously don't.
That is a lovely ideal. It just far removed from the reality of this board--which is rife with insults and anti-social behaviors. My question isn't so much asking about what should be the case here, but about current expectations given the way things are here. To rephrase my question: Is it reasonable for the ladies to expect to enter an arena where mud fights are the rule, and unlike the men, expect to fully participate though remain unsoiled?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-